Thread Tools

House Rejects Tea Party Effort To Screw Up Light Bulbs | Tea Party conservatives fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to pass Rep. Joe Barton‚Äôs (R-TX) BULB Act, which would have revoked lighting efficiency standards that are already reducing pollution, creating jobs, and spurring technological innovation. The 233 to 193 vote, although a majority, rejected the bill because it was being considered under suspension rules that allowed Republicans to avoid regular order. The five Democrats who voted in favor of this Republican joke were conservative Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Colin Peterson (D-MN), and Nick Rahall (D-WV). Ten Republicans voted against their party and for clean energy manufacturing, and one voted present.

House Rejects Tea Party Effort To Screw Up Light Bulbs | Tea Party conservatives fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to pass Rep. Joe Barton‚Äôs (R-TX) BULB Act, which would have revoked lighting efficiency standards that are already reducing pollution, creating jobs, and spurring technological innovation. The 233 to 193 vote, although a majority, rejected the bill because it was being considered under suspension rules that allowed Republicans to avoid regular order. The five Democrats who voted in favor of this Republican joke were conservative Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Colin Peterson (D-MN), and Nick Rahall (D-WV). Ten Republicans voted against their party and for clean energy manufacturing, and one voted present.

Honestly... In real practice, these new bulbs are a PURE waste of money.

First off, if we had a bulb make it the 10 years without replacing I would be happy, but they burn out just as fast as the other ones... so while we do have them all over our house, we relace them at the same intervals as the other ones, only now I'm spending 4 - 8 times more for the bulbs.

I can't help but assume these standards are nothing but a shot in the Lighting industry lobbied for from congress under the guise of green.

Honestly... In real practice, these new bulbs are a PURE waste of money.

First off, if we had a bulb make it the 10 years without replacing I would be happy, but they burn out just as fast as the other ones... so while we do have them all over our house, we relace them at the same intervals as the other ones, only now I'm spending 4 - 8 times more for the bulbs.

I can't help but assume these standards are nothing but a shot in the Lighting industry lobbied for from congress under the guise of green.

Click to expand...

At least in MA, you can occasionally find these bulbs at similar prices to regular name-brand bulbs and they last a lot longer. In my building, where we run hallway lights 24/7, we used to replace the bulbs every couple of weeks. Now we replace them every couple of months. But, there do seem to be some brands that last longer than others.

J Immelt who is one of Obozo's economic advisors and the head of GE closed a couple of Incandescent light bulbs plants in the US and GE is making thier toxic bulbs (which produce annoying light) in China and essentially congress banned consumers from purchasing a product built in the USA for a product from China that people don't want.

J Immelt who is one of Obozo's economic advisors and the head of GE closed a couple of Incandescent light bulbs plants in the US and GE is making thier toxic bulbs (which produce annoying light) in China and essentially congress banned consumers from purchasing a product built in the USA for a product from China that people don't want.

J Immelt who is one of Obozo's economic advisors and the head of GE closed a couple of Incandescent light bulbs plants in the US and GE is making thier toxic bulbs (which produce annoying light) in China and essentially congress banned consumers from purchasing a product built in the USA for a product from China that people don't want.

Anyone think that is odd?

BTW condemn Bush since this folly started under his watch.

Click to expand...

Incandescent bulbs have not been banned. They simply need to be more efficient.

Late in his second term, George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires light bulb makers to improve the efficiency of incandescent bulbs by 25 percent. The details of the law dictated a phase-out of the manufacture of certain bulbs in their current incarnation, starting with 100-watt bulbs next January.

The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014.

Furthermore, all sorts of exemptions are written into the law, which means that all sorts of bulbs are getting a free pass and can keep their energy-guzzling ways indefinitely, including ‚Äúspecialty bulbs‚ÄĚ like the Edison bulbs favored by Mr. Henault, as well as three-way bulbs, silver-bottomed bulbs, chandelier bulbs, refrigerator bulbs, plant lights and many, many others.

US workers sent to unemployment so a more expensive dangerous product can be made in China.

No wonder unemployment is above 16% when we have politicians with this mindset. Solving imaginary problems with dangerous expensive products.

BTW if you use a CF bulb in a hallway and keep it on all the time it will last longer if you use it in a domestic setting where it is turned on and off it negatively affects the lifespan of the bulb.

It is also an inferior product in terms of the light it puts out.

Click to expand...

Are you really complaining about a Corporation laying off 200 employees to move their manufacturing to China? This has nothing to do with incandescent light bulbs and everything to do with GE wanting to pad their bottom line.

I'm sure you were outraged when Jack Welch canned nearly 100,000 people in the 80's.

His ruthless methods earned Welch the nickname ‚ÄúNeutron Jack‚ÄĚ among GE workers, due to the layoffs he carried out soon after taking over. In the course of the 1980s Welch cut some 100,000 jobs.

Click to expand...

He established the principle of selling off any subsidiaries that failed to maintain a number one or number two market share in their respective industries, while meeting profit expectations.